Likes

Search

Camera evaluations and lights

I thought I’d start a new thread as the last one is all over the place 😊

I’ve been looking at previous tests and comparing the same cameras, admittedly with different firmware versions, under different lighting conditions.

HMI’s do vary but only a green/magenta axis variation and not a lot, probably because we make sure that we aren’t using old lamps!

Tungsten varies Blue/Amber but that will be the diffusion materials used combined with the age of the lamps.

The most consistent are BB&S, Cineo & Photon Beard, all remote phosphor.

I’ll ask K5600 if I can get a couple of the 1600 Joker 2’s or the Alpha 1600, it’ll be tight on light level but it should be enough. I need to get T11 at 400 ISO covering 4 * DSC charts with a bit spare.

I’ll try and get 4 * Blondes as these are the best punch for power/weight I can think of.

AND we’ll use the Sky Panels.

There will be 2 setups, first the charts in all 3 lighting conditions, then, time allowing, a booklight setup with a model and bits to be determined. This again will be all 3 lights but will only be normal to +4 stops. The charts will be +5 -3 stops. No camera I’ve looked at is useable below -3 so I’m saving time and data by not going there. Unless of course you know better.

As I’ll be shooting S35 and FF I’ll use primes this time, 50mm & 75mm or 85mm depends what they are 😊

I thought I’d start a new thread as the last one is all over the place
😊

I’ve been looking at previous tests and comparing the same cameras, admittedly with different firmware versions, under different lighting conditions.

HMI’s do vary but only a green/magenta axis variation and not a lot, probably because we make sure that we aren’t using old lamps!

Tungsten varies Blue/Amber but that will be the diffusion materials used combined with the age of the lamps.

The most consistent are BB&S, Cineo & Photon Beard, all remote phosphor.

I’ll ask K5600 if I can get a couple of the 1600 Joker 2’s or the Alpha 1600, it’ll be tight on light level but it should be enough. I need to get T11 at 400 ISO covering 4 * DSC charts with a bit spare.

I’ll try and get 4 * Blondes as these are the best punch for power/weight I can think of.

AND we’ll use the Sky Panels.

There will be 2 setups, first the charts in all 3 lighting conditions, then, time allowing, a booklight setup with a model and bits to be determined. This again will be all 3 lights but will only be normal to +4 stops. The charts will be
+5 -3 stops. No camera I’ve looked at is useable below -3 so I’m saving time and data by not going there. Unless of course you know better.

As I’ll be shooting S35 and FF I’ll use primes this time, 50mm & 75mm or 85mm depends what they are
😊

Don't want to assume you have infinite time/patience to test everything under the sun, but plasma lights are supposed to have VERY complete spectrums and tons of power per watt. Considering they're a little newer to the game it may be possible to get some free test units as I imagine they'd want to be more visible to all the CML members.

As far as I know, there are two companies doing these, Hive and Gavolights (US and UK based respectively).

Barbizon lighting deal with Hive in the UK, and this guy brought a demo for me once: acollins@...

The Gavo Light guys at BVE seemed very knowledgeable (I mostly spoke with their German engineer), who says they have more consistent colour. Sounds plausible but I've never tested them. info@...

I know it's more a camera test, so if you're not keen to test a ton of lights, maybe this info would be useful for someone who is interested.

I’m just happy you included the Kinefinity (hopefully Mavo LF)... I’m hoping that maybe another manufacturer will offer to support them so service does not become a Skype session and remote access. Fingers crossed.

I'm working on two cameras per manufacturer, top and bottom of the range.

While understanding that objective, I would still suggest substituting the FS7 for the FS5 in your tests because it’s very widely used in mid/lower budget production while the FS5 which is more of an outlier for those looking for a lightweight alternative. FS7 users will be much more interested in your results since they’ve generally purchased it looking for a cheaper alternative to the ARRI and RED that still provides comparable quality. How comparable remains a very much disputed question that your tests may shed light on. Testing the FS5 in that context is pretty irrelevant .

For professional production I would argue that Sony range of options is better displayed with the Venice at the top and the FS7 at the bottom. The FS5 is more a niche product and far less used.

I'm working on two cameras per manufacturer, top and bottom of the range.

While understanding that objective, I would still suggest substituting the FS7 for the FS5 in your tests because it’s very widely used in mid/lower budget production while the FS5 which is more of an outlier for those looking for a lightweight
alternative. FS7 users will be much more interested in your results since they’ve generally purchased it looking for a cheaper alternative to the ARRI and RED that still provides comparable quality. How comparable remains a very much disputed question that
your tests may shed light on. Testing the FS5 in that context is pretty irrelevant .

For professional production I would argue that Sony range of options is better displayed with the Venice at the top and the FS7 at the bottom. The FS5 is more a niche product and far less used.

I don’t think the point of such testing is to bring comfort or discomfort to people who currently so happen to own a particular camera.

Geoff, since you’re planning to use ProRes RAW for several cameras (a smart move for leveling that playing field even more), I think it would be helpful to break down your planned post workflow beforehand. Currently ProRes RAW is only supported in Apple programs such as FCPX and Compressor. How will this affect your post workflow compared to say the Venice or the VariCam Pure?

Not a dig at all, just something I expect needs some thinking out well beforehand.

Mitch GrossCinema Product Manager Panasonic Systems Solutions Company of North AmericaNew York

It’s the same sensor as the FS7 and the same 12bit linear raw now, no? (same sensor as the F5 in fact, except that records 16bit linear).

So if Geoff is recording externally (Raw I’m assuming) it’d basically be the same result.

Ah Good point about the sensors. As I recall there was something about the way 12 bit Raw is executed on the FS5 that was actually improved over the FS7 but I don’t recall what it was. Maybe I’m wrong and in any case I think it would only affect the noise floor.

BTW - I doubt Geoff has some kind of nefarious grudge against the FS7. His explanation makes perfect sense to me. Doing tests is a gigantic PITA and I’m quite thankful someone else is eager to do them and share the results.

I own a Sony FS5 and think that most people who own one bought it with the intention of shooting RAW on an external recorder. If you’re only planning on shooting internally, then the FS7 would make more sense (unless you need the 10 hr. internal recording time in HD and 5 hr. internal recording time in UHD by using 256GB SDXC cards).

It’s the same sensor as the FS7 and
the same 12bit linear raw now, no? (same sensor as the F5
in fact, except that records 16bit linear).

So if Geoff is recording externally (Raw I’m
assuming) it’d basically be the same result.

Ah Good point about the sensors. As I recall there
was something about the way 12 bit Raw is executed on the FS5
that was actually improved over the FS7 but I don’t recall what
it was. Maybe I’m wrong and in any case I think it would only
affect the noise floor.

_________________________________

I am under the impression the FS5 is not the same sensor as the
FS7/F5. Anybody have any documentation that would clear up the
issue?

Sony keep certain things close to their chest. Who knew that the F5 could shoot 4K until the hack? Also I hear that the boards between FS5 and FS7 interpret footage differently. Is that a deliberate hold back. Possibly but they are close. Still would like to see the F5 in 16bit raw hold up against others above its weight.

It’s the same sensor as the FS7 and
the same 12bit linear raw now, no? (same sensor as the F5
in fact, except that records 16bit linear).

So if Geoff is recording externally (Raw I’m
assuming) it’d basically be the same result.

Ah Good point about the sensors. As I recall there
was something about the way 12 bit Raw is executed on the FS5
that was actually improved over the FS7 but I don’t recall what
it was. Maybe I’m wrong and in any case I think it would only
affect the noise floor.

_________________________________

I am under the impression the FS5 is not the same sensor as the
FS7/F5. Anybody have any documentation that would clear up the
issue?

I once saw a guy do a review of the varicam LT where he filmed a lot fooliage and compaired it to the fs7. And it became obvious the difference in the amount of nouances that the Lt sensor could discerne, where you quite obviously could se more differences in the leaves while they were more alike on the fs7. I interpreted this as testing the purity of the bayerfilter. How little the manufacturers let rgb color bleed into each other to boost the sensitivity ( something demonstranted by reds changeable filters) i don’t know what the studio equivalent of this would be but I think it is one of the key factors in delivering a nuanced picture so it would be nice if you could ad an element testing this.

Last time I checked Compressor doesn’t support ProRes Raw - unless you pass it through FCPX first.

ie you have to open up FCPX, select a PRR clip. Set the debayer (or Raw to log conversion as they call it), set the Camera LUT (‘none’ keeps it in log), then select share to Compressor.

Then you need to wait for Compressor to Open up and set up the project.

Then you can go back to FCPX to go through the same thing with the next file (again, last time I checked, there was no way to send multiple files to Compressor at once - except to add them all to a timeline).

I don’t think the point of such testing is to bring comfort or discomfort to people who currently so happen to own a particular camera.

Geoff, since you’re planning to use ProRes RAW for several cameras (a smart move for leveling that playing field even more), I think it would be helpful to break down your planned post workflow beforehand. Currently ProRes RAW is only supported in Apple programs such as FCPX and Compressor. How will this affect your post workflow compared to say the Venice or the VariCam Pure?

Not a dig at all, just something I expect needs some thinking out well beforehand.

Mitch GrossCinema Product Manager Panasonic Systems Solutions Company of North AmericaNew York

Verify Delete

Are you sure you wish to delete this message from the message archives of cml-raw-log-hdr@cml.news? This cannot be undone.

Report Message

Reason

Report to Moderators
I think this message isn't appropriate for our Group. The Group moderators are responsible for maintaining their community and can address these issues.
Report to CML Support
I think this violates the Terms of Service. This includes: harm to minors, violence or threats, harassment or privacy invasion, impersonation or misrepresentation, fraud or phishing.